tv The O Reilly Factor FOX News July 14, 2009 5:00am-6:00am EDT
i think we are like 3, 2, away from that o'reilly cat. so be -- bill: "the o'reilly factor" is on. tonight. >> the task of a judge is not to make law. it is to apply the law. bill: judge sotomayor under scrutiny. is she fair and balanced or is she a race advocate? we'll have analysis. >> it was a degrading comment about a young woman and it's not acceptable. bill: did sarah palin quit because of the constant attacks on her and her family? the culture warriors have been investigating. in the. [chanting] bill: also, another revolt may be underway in california. denying state payment to illegal aliens. caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone.
the factor begins right now. [captioning made possible by fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- bill: hi, i'm bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. race and the supreme court. that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. today, judge sonia sotomayor began the process by which thee she will be confirmed to the supreme court. only a huge gaffe by the judge could prevent that as democrats are in control. but here's the real deal on judge sotomayor. she is the product of a system that now celebrates minorities who show potential and work hard. and that is a good thing. for hundreds of years in america, minorities were second-class citizens. but, with many wrongs now righted, we are supposed to be a society where equal justice for all prevails. and herein lies the problem with judge sotomayor. although her overall record is solid, she did allow a gross injustice to take place in new
haven connecticut. as you may know, 19 white firefighters and one hispanic were denied promotions because no african-americans performed well enough on the civil service test to be promoted. the it was standard issue designed to show communication skills that any high ranking fire fighting officer should have. the supreme court ruled 5-4 that the new haven firefighters were unjustly treated by the city. but in dissent, the ultra liberal justice ruth bader ginsburg exposed the danger. she said new haven was correct in denying the fifortsd in what they had rightfully owned because they had no vested right to a promotion unquote. she also said the written portion of the test was unfair will to blacks because it contained a writing section. ginsburg and fire fighting should not be tied together that of course is insulting both to firefighters and black
americans. now, ginsburg's opinion is unjust and unfair. but she could not care less. historically ruth bader ginsburg has ignored the constitution preferring to impose her far-left plifl opinions on the entire nation. remember, ginsburg is a former counsel for the aclu, a far left zealot who believes america is essentially an unjust country and she is going to do something about it. think about this. the firefighters take a legitimate test offered by the city. and because the test doesn't come out the way ginsburg and other liberal judges, including miss sotomayor want it to, they throw it out. that's fair? that's not discriminatory toward those who passed the test? come on. by siding with the social engineering crew, judge sotomayor has created doubt about her ability to be fair. we can't be making laws and legal rulings by a color code. that's not equal justice for
all. the issue is very clear. out of six cases judge sotomayor's rulings have been overturned four times by the supreme court. that's not a good record. i believe she is an honest woman. and maybe she has just made a few mistakes. maybe. if she turns out to be another rude baird ginsburg, the united states of america will take a huge turn for the worse. we need judges who will treat all americans the same way, period. and that's the memo. now for the top story tonight reaction to the hearings yet another cia controversy starring dick cheney. joining us from washington fox news analyst karl rove. where am i going wrong here, mr. rove. >> i thought it was interesting when senator schumer introduced judge sotomayor that he clearly put her in the camp of ruth bader ginsburg and she herself identified clearly with ruth bader ginsburg.
what you left out of your introduction was the central role of the judge sotomayor played in this whole drama. after all, she is the judge on the court of appeals who writes the opinion dismissing the claims of the new haven firefighters who were denied promotions because they happened to be latino or white. she did so in a way that even drew the ire of people who agreed with her. the judge for example on the appellate court with her condemned the manner in which she had just dismissed the constitutional claims of the firefighters without giving them due deference. some of the minority in the supreme court decision also held that the actions of the court of appeals, a panel that she led, were inappropriate in not giving -- bill: i don't think ms. society mayor is going -- ms. sonia sotomayor is going to be able defend that. it doesn't matter. many want another ruth bader ginsburg. president obama certainly does. i think everybody has to understand where we are as a nation. there are many people on the
left and the right who don't want the constitution upheld any longer. they want an imposition of their ideology on the entire country. that's what we're talking about here. and, unfortunately, the democratic party now controls 60 votes in the senate. and it is, i think, sotomayor is going to be confirmed. i'm not so sure she is ruth bader ginsburg. i looklook looked at her entire record 78 times she did not withhold discuss that tore claims that reached her desk. ginsburg never would have had that record. i think she is much more independent than ginsburg but there is that nagging doubt. >> well, only time will tell. i think if you went back and looked at judge ginsburg's record before, you would find similar patterns where even very liberal judges find it hard to uphold some outrageous claims. now, she also, i have to say in judge sotomayor's defense has a pretty good record on criminal cases. but, look, here is the point. in the 1930s a legal school grew
up a school of legal thought called legal realism. it's been around for a long time but it's been gaining in strength in the last several decades and legal realism is essentially a very liberal philosophy that says we should be concerned not with what the constitution says. not watt words of a law say, not the intent of either the writers or of the constitution or people who draft legislation but we should be concerned with outcomes. it strikes me that particularly when it comes to questions of race, and when it comes to questions of outcomes based on race, judge sotomayor has a philosophy that is out of keeping with ordinary people. that's why she made that comment about how she would hope a wise latino -- wise latina woman, a woman would come to a better decision than a white male. that causes people to whence. i don't know if you saw the gallup poll that said by 53 to 33 margin people wanted her for the supreme court. underneath that said 38% of the
people had a positive opinion of judge sotomayor and 26% did not. think about that 1.5 so-to-1. among a person just now being introduced on the national stage. that's a significant number of people who have an unfavorable opinion of her can be largely traced to the fact that they heard about this comment about a wise latino is better than a white man. bill: she said it a number of times. we will let that go until she is asked the question which is probably tomorrow. >> one last thing. she will have a great answer. she has had weeks to prepare. she has got the votes. she will be on the court. bill: great answer to them is not a great answer to me and maybe to you. we're looking at it from a very realistic point of view and not a politically partisan point of view. let her give it a shot. now, cia, the far left running wild with some kind of undefined program that the cia didn't tell congress about. do you know anything about this
undefined program? you are in the white house at the time. >> well, i want to limit my comments to what i have read in the newspapers and observations. bill: why can't you tell us what you know? >> well, because, look, it's interesting. the cia briefed congress to, this i guess, in june and the congress immediately leaks it. that, itself is, a violation, i think, of several statutes and indicative of why it is so dangerous to give congress information. remember, this is about according to the "wall street journal" a program that was designed and for which people were trained, a program which was never put into effect. and so congress is saying we want you to -- we want you to brief us. we, the left wing in congress, want you to brief us on ideas you have. not necessarily on programs that you executed. bill: so we can tell the "new york times" what they're. that's what they want. >> exactly. and incident dentally they can embarrass our country. reveal them and damage the effectiveness of these programs if the congress would have been briefed had this program been executed absolutely. bill: because the program wasn't
executed, there wasn't a legal compulsion to tell congress, is that what you are saying? >> absolutely. the cia director general hayden came out this afternoon and said he was never told not to brief congress about it the idea that vice president cheney or president bush or anybody told the cia director mike hayden came out and said i was never told not to brief congress. let's go back to it. this ask a program according to the "wall street journal" that was designed to kill al qaeda leadership. it was never put into action. bill: there is no legal reason to. you know what this is all about, don't you, mr. rove? >> protecting nancy pelosi and undermining the effectiveness of our intelligence agencies in a time of war. bill: nope. it's all about the economy. the economy is going south. things aren't working out. this is the best diversion that the democrats, you know, the far left zealots can come up with. >> i think you may be right that that's in the minds of some. it's got a more immediate effect
i think what we saw today was a lot of dog and pony show, bill. i don't believe when she says she is all about impartiality, fidelity and law. i think we are hearing what she has to say, what she has practiced because the reality is that she said this thing about the -- bill: if you think it's all b.s., why would you vote yes? >> she is well-qualified. she is supremely educated, princeton, yale, all that right kind of background, been a prosecutor in new york. been on the federal bench 17 years. bill: resume not her rulings although the rulings are certainly in play. you would say yes? >> yeah, the rulings are mainstream and when you look at the rulings, you say huh, this looks ok. it's what she has been saying off the bench that gives me concern. gives me pause. bill: you still say yes. >> has ideology. every judge has ideology. bill: will you vote yes based on
what we know up to this point? >> i think she hits the basic parameters that elections have consequences, obama the right to appoint somebody he wants. republicans have a right to question her. they are not in a will the of control here. it's porpoise to point out that, yes, we are dealing with somebody for whom justice may not be blind. it is explicit sitly color-coded to the things she is saying. it's a disappointing move to the court and something not at all racist for republicans to point out that's aggravating argument made by the left. bill: in your opinion that does not disqualify her from sitting on the court? >> i think if she makes a mistake in the hearings where she affirms these beliefs. then that would be a problem. i'm not sure -- bill: is she ruth bader ginsburg ii? >> she is pretty close. and ruth bader ginsburg is accepted as a liberal justice on the court. you know. the thing that bothers me, i was just listening to you and mary katharine was if you, bill o'reilly, had made that comment
about, you know, a smart, experienced irish guy is always going to be better. bill: irish man, irish guy, yeah. >> all right. than a black man, then i would say hey, have you got a problem, dude. bill: would you use the word dude? would you say dude? >> look, i'm talking to you, bill. come on. bill: look, we all know about the bar of freedom of speech for white guys is a lot higher than anybody else. we all know that. >> and it should be, yeah. bill: and it should be. of course it should be, juan. let's kick the white guys when they are up. >> no. come on. who is the majority? who is most of the supreme court justices in this country in the history of the country. bill: white guys. and they have screwed it up those white guys. >> that doesn't give anybody the right to make the assertion that somebody with a different colored skin makes better judgments than anybody else with different colored skin.
that's wrong. >> i would say that's a racial if not racist comment. but you have to understand where she is coming from and our history. bill: ok. you know, let's see how she answers it i said to mr. rove, tomorrow then we can go on further. now this trumped up cia thing. mary katharine, look, i am right about this. i am so right. and i want everyone to know it. the economy is going south. obama's numbers are going south. it's not really fair because six months is not enough time to turn the economy around. let's get something to divert attention away from us and get it back to cheney and bush. so here we go. it's just bogus. if they had anything, give it to me and i will put it on the air, go ahead, mary katharine. >> i'm for one, shocked, that the cia had a secret plan to kill osama bin laden and ayman al zawahiri. the idea they are going to make political hay out of this is not
very smart for them. now is a time republicans have been punished on the national security issue because of the iraq war and mistakes made. democrats have had a chance to take this back with all the infighting with cia and making political hay out of it, i don't think they are whiffing on this entirely. i don't think it's benefitting them. bill: "newsweek" magazine obviously wanted an investigation and they are pushing holder to do it. >> i think you are confusing two things. i think one thing is the secret plan that they didn't tell the congress about and, of course, congress reflects us, and we should know what's going on. bill: even if it's not operational? even if it's just somebody's piece of paper. >> that's the law. bill: no, it's not the law. if the plan is operational, they have to inform coming. if it's just some guy made this up, they don't. >> no, this f. they are planning -- well, my understanding if it gets to the planning stage, they are supposed to speak with the authorizing committee on senate intelligence. but what holder is up to is a
little different clrks is to say that if people were taking steps beyond what was authorized by the lawyers at the justice department, then there needs to be an investigation because then you are talking about more than waterboarding and talking about things going on privately. bill: if he has got enough evidence, i don't mind that so far i have seen no evidence at all. mary katharine has got the last word. >> i haven't seen it either. >> i don't think it's yet conclusive either that nobody in congress knew about this and we will see coming up. there has been some dispute in the past as you know about what congress knew and when. they have been willing to, i think, stretch the truth there let's see how this comes out. bill: thank you. directly ahead racism and judge sotomayor. you won't believe what one hispanic group is putting out there. and later congressman bobby rush demanding an apology from me over michael jackson. will i give that apology? upcoming. if you're like a lot of people,
you have high blood pressure... and you have high cholesterol. you've taken steps to try and lower both your numbers. but how close are you to your goals? there may be more you can do. only caduet combines two proven medicines... in a single pill to significantly lower... high blood pressure and high cholesterol. in a clinical study of patients... with slightly elevated blood pressure and cholesterol, caduet helped 48% reach both goals in just 4 weeks. caduet is one of many treatment options,
in addition to diet and exercise... that you can discuss with your doctor. caduet is not for everyone. it's not for people with liver problems... and women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. to check for liver problems, you need simple blood tests. tell your doctor about any heart problems... and all other medications you are taking... or if you experience muscle pain or weakness, as they may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. how close are you to where you want to be? ask your doctor if caduet can help you go... for both your goals.
internet cop amanda carpenter from the "washington times" has been investigating. all right. i'm going to withhold comment until you tell us what you found out about presente action. >> sure. this group is son sored by something -- sponsored by the citizen engagement laboratories which seeks to be incubator for, excuse me, identity based campaigns. that's what they are seeking to do. they are seeking to build people based on different identities, in this case hispanic groups for political advocacy. one of the co-founders of citizen engagement laboratories came to us from moveon.org. his name is james rutgers. he used to be in charge of grass roots campaigns for moveon.org. that's kind of the background on that group. bill: george soros ten calls come out of the headquarters to identity politics. just to be clear, identity politics is basically running
people from mostly minority precincts, minority people. and then trying to get them elected based on intimidation, would you say? >> well, i think they would argue that they are trying to build a coalition. in this case they are running this ad and republican john micah of florida's district and putting it on the radio. you know, is he a safe republican by most standards reelected by 63% and up again in 2010. i think they are trying to recycle the old anti-rush limbaugh talking points. bill: they are trying to tie in mica's with limbaugh's racist comment. that's what they are trying to do. they could call me up and say all right, what do you think about limbaugh's comment? i'm not going to say anything to these people. why why bother saying anything to presente action? that's insane. they could do anything -- you know. why would anybody say anything to those people? so that's obviously nakedly what they are trying to do but they also are presenting mr. limbaugh as a republican leader, that's
not true. >> right. bill: you know, they are doing a lot of untoward things here. >> right. i think -- they are seeing an opportunity for the sotomayor confirmation hearings to recycle this old limbaugh talking point paint him as establishment republican leader. it's very note worthy -- reserved for minority leader. bill: it doesn't matter what presente action thinks about limbaugh. that's not going to hurt him one way or the other. but the end zone game is to hurt mica, to hurt this congressman. do they have a candidate going up against him who is a minority? >> no. he is doing well for the most part. did i talk to his staff and they said that they did see an uptick in phone calls to their district office but the overwhelming, that's what they told me overwhelming majority of them came from people who are not their constituents, primarily from people in california. bill: why pick on mica. see, i get the move-on thing. i get them using the hispanic
organization to advance their far left agenda. stealthwise because unless we report this nobody would know. move on was behind it they wouldn't know. i get all that. why single out micah unless there is a minority candidate in 2010. >> that's coming up. remember he doesn't vote even transportation committee. bill: no reason to pick on mica in florida unless there is some other strategy. >> another is progressive campaign for change committee which seeks to elect liberal candidates, of course. i just think they see an opening to remind hispanic voters in florida that the republicans may be racist and, once again, tie him to rush limbaugh. easy one off campaign they can fire off these ads are easy and chief to create. you get a hit on politico. hufing post picks it up and spreads around the internet.
bill: plenty more ahead as the factor moves. bobby rush demanding an apology from me over humble correspondent michael jackson. take a look at that culture warriors on sarah palin's sensitivity? did she quit because of constant criticism of her and her family? we hope you stay tuned to those imodium multi-symptom relief combines two powerful medicines for fast relief of your diarrhea symptoms, so you can get back out there. imodium. get back out there.
tonight, the battle continues over illegal immigration. it's estimated that the state of california spends 5.3 billion with a b on providing illegal immigrants with medical care, education and payments. there are estimated 2.7 illegals in california. about 7% of the population out there. as you may know, the state of california is bankrupt. so now there is a movement to put a proposition on the ballot and that would drastically cut benefits for illegals and their children who may be u.s. citizens. joining us now from los angeles tony gulls, a taxpayer rights activist. all right. so if you get the votes that you need the initiative would be on next june in california, and it would say what? >> it will say that we will offer tax relief to the beleaguered california taxpayer at the tune between 2 billion and $13 billion. and we are going to accomplish
that through three parts that blend a combination of long-term and short-term budget reduction. and the three parts are as follows: first, we're going to discourage or deter birth -- to california. which is part of the big problem that we have. in that mothers who want to obtain a birth certificate in california, will have to sign an affidavit that they are either citizens or legal residents. bill: so you want to stop the so-called border babies who come over, the illegal aliens have their children so they are u.s. citizens. that's number one. number two? >> absolutely. number two is we're going to completely eliminate child-only welfare in california. bill: what does that mean child-only welfare is payments to the legal kids who are u.s. citizens of illegal parents?
>> $2 billion that are put into parents directly deposited into parents' bank accounts. bill: right. >> in order to provide for the children because they're indigent or they have no money and so on. bill: is there illegal alien component there? is it just illegal alien parents or everybody? >> no. this will elimb the program for everyone. this is one of a few components. bill: what about the kids that are destitute they have nothing to eat, what are you going to do? >> then we have to provide in the generosity of the american people that's always been a tradition with us and people will turn to churches, friends, and families. bill: that's going to be a tough sale there, mr. dolz. what's number three? >> the state has no money. bill: listen, i understand it better than anybody. i told schwarzenegger this was going to happen three years ago. go ahead. what's the third part? >> now, public benefits for illegal aliens will be eliminated and this includes prenatal care.
it includes in-state tuition. it includes any benefit for which the taxpayers are paying for that is not an emergency. bill: ok. >> or medical emergency. bill: emergency room still stands but all the other payments to illegal aliens cease but not their legal children. they could still get benefits if they needed it like education? >> yes. they can get high school education. bill: you are going to have a problem with the middle one. i don't know if californians are going to go for no direct payment to children of destitute parents. i wouldn't go for that. >> the state has already -- the governor of the state has proposed exactly that measure. that way we are not different from the governor's proposal. bill: i understand that but i don't know if governor schwarzenegger is in the leadership position he once was in. you know, if you know what i'm saying there, mr. dolz. we will follow this initiative. let us know if you get the signatures and we appreciate you coming on. >> thank you.
because of the unrelenting attacks on her family? how women respond to criticism as opposed to men. here now the culture warriors gretchen carlson from "fox & friends" and fox news analyst margaret hoover. ok, hoover. number one, how important do you think the withering criticism, the unfair criticism directed towards sarah palin, how much of that weigh into her decision to quit in your opinion? >> i think it's probably a third of it she is a fighter and i think she feels like she couldn't respond to everything because she was shackled with the responsibilities of her governorship and whatnot. can i take the question a little bit with the way you characterized this issue. you are suggesting that women or there is a suggestion out there i think that women are more sensitive and somehow can't take the heat. if you can't take the eat get out of the kitchen. bill: did i say of that. >> there is that indication. bill: did i say that? >> you alluded. bill: how did i allude? i said the question is raised
how men process criticism as opposed to women. and now i'm alluding. i'm implying. this is what i mean the oversensitivity, ladies and gentlemen. i didn't allude to anything. i just raised the question. >> don't take the bait, hoover. unbelievable. bill: wait, wait, wait. ok. so you say a third of it was criticism directed toward the governor and two thirds were she couldn't govern because she was strapped down by ethic complaints and the other things that she cited. is that correct? >> yes. but i wouldn't say it was because she was too sensitive. most people don't take criticism well by the way. my guess is you don't take criticism well either. bill: i do but most people don't, that's correct. [ laughter ] >> listen, o'reilly, name one male politician that's been eviscerated to the level sarah palin has eviscerated. bill: bill clinton. >> after the fact. not because of what he stood for politically. no way. >> still favorable by 60%.
>> the fact that this "new york times" article comes out today and says she may have lost a lot of weight from the stress and state-of-the-arted losing her hair. who wouldn't after she what she went through. bill: so you say what percentage of it were attacks on the governor that caused her decision to quit? she says a third. what do you say? >> i think that it was a subconscious decision. i'm not going to lay a percentage on it because, you know what? as i have had time to analyze her stepping down as governor, i have actually come around to change my opinion. as a woman i don't like to give up on things and i think it's important to our children to not be a quitter. however, this woman was eviscerated. she was eviscerated. and if this meant that she was going to go back to her family and raise those children in a way she sees fit, then i support her 100%. >> let me be very clear i don't think she quit because she was bogged down and too sensitive and unable to emotionally cope with the criticisms on her. hillary clinton, gerald keen ferraro, sarah palin, they are the only ones that competed at this level in politics.
i think sarah palin wanted to fight back in ways that she didn't feel like she could. >> for the exact reason that we like her as a maverick, or that some people liked her as a maverick make her less likely to be able to handle the criticism. she hadn't been there before. bill: there is no doubt that the criticism was unrelenting. there is a cheap and tawdry piece in "newsweek" this week. bernie goldberg is going to look at it tomorrow. it's just awferl. it just implies that she is an idiot and it's "newsweek's" disgrace is what it is and we will deal with it tomorrow. there is no doubt that she was -- and her family, too, they were mocked and diminished and demeaned constantly. ok. now, i have experienced that in the last 13 years on this program as you both know. and my way to deal with it is i strike back. ok? and just as "newsweek" will get it tomorrow and they will, that's what i do. i get -- i say this sun fair.
these attacks are cheap and dishonest and i'm going to go get them. now, sarah palin did some of that, some of that. are you both saying that she should do more of getting her critics? gretchen: she can't win no matter what she does o'reilly. gretchen: she is now getting golden globe out ton the road and in the public eye. she still could run again. she still could get mocked and demeaned that's not going to stop. how would you handle tnches first inticket from a fighter is to fight back. i think she handled that correctly. a lot of the ridiculous claims that were. for instance, if she had not come back against dave letterman, that would have been a sin. she had to come back after that ridiculous show. bill: you say she should attack more? less? or the same? gretchen: i don't know now. bill: what do you say? >> i think she should fight back more and more resources to do it now and not hindered by the fact that she had this massive responsibility to a state to do
it. bill: she can do what she wants. >> she can build a coordination team. bill: best seller people will read the book. she could do punditry. she could be maybe the third culture warrior. she dookd that she could give speeches and with be a guest on any television program she wants to be and go and name names if shield like to. i'm not quite sure that would be the smartest thing for her to do. i think she has to establish some kind of credibility with people who see her as maybe not being up to the level. >> we need to get to the heart of the matter here. this is a gender-specific situation. bill: she was attacked because she was a woman. >> of course. bill: why are men like me attacked? >> that's a different thing. you are attacked politically for how you feel about certain issues and because you have conservative points of view from time to time and that's an automatic target. but i believe gender plays a huge role in this. bill: she was attacked because she was a woman. >> and she was a beautiful woman. bill: nancy pelosi is not
attacked by the press and she is a good-looking woman. >> have you ever seen a picture of nancy pelosi with a picture of her legs and crowds out behind her. the kinds of attack and kinds of coverage was entirely sexist and double standard. bill: why isn't nancy pelosi attacked though she is a powerful woman. why? >> nancy pelosi is attacked for being a woman as well but she is in a little different stage of life. frankly i think most of the media agrees with her so she is not attacked for her feminine at this. bill: most of the media agrees wither had. >> they didn't know what to do with sarah palin. here you have a career woman who has kids. bill: people like her because she was pro life. >> they didn't know what to do with her except throw her under the bus. bill: you think she got it worse because she was a lady, a good-looking women. >> absolutely. bill: culture warriors, everybody, here they are. here are the results of our bill o'reilly.com poll. do you think governor pail lip was smart to resign. more than 145,000 voted. 7'% say -- 77% say it was smart
announcer: to learn more about captioned telephone, call 1-800-552-7724 or go to our website. i'll see you at 3:00! announcer: captioned telephone - enjoy the phone again! bill: reality check, where the truth does not only set us free, it also allows us to bring you a five-minute segment. check one. congressman bobby rush from illinois angry with me. releasing a statement, quote: bill: here is what rush said about congressman king, quote:
bill: well, that sounds like a race-based argument to me, african-american, specifically? i guess i could be wrong. congressman rush is correct, however, in saying he did not call mr. king a racist. that is true and i should have made that clear. by the way the congressman has an open invitation to appear on the factor specifically. check two, interesting sound bite from louis farrakhan about michael jackson. >> when he was young, somebody told him he wasn't beautiful and he wanted, when you have money, like most rich people in hollywood or entertainers, movie actresses, business people who don't like their nose or their lips or their breasts or their behind or whatever they want to improve on, money makes them able to do that.
so he was improving in his mind on himself by changing his nose, his lips. but the journey -- that's the journey outward. >> are you saying that he didn't want to be black? that he wanted to be white or look white? >> well, the evidence is there. bill: check three. tv guide.com also took me to task on jackson writing quote: bill: tv good night.com's analysis is not only bizarre it's incredibly stupid. first of all, i did not ask by african-americans embrace jackson. i said it was misguided to make him a black icon. second, these morons apparently don't know the difference between adoption and invitro
fertilization where parents select sperm donors. tv guide magazine which we like is not affiliated with the loons at tv guide.com. as you know the father of bristol palin's baby levi johnston continues to exploit his position to the palin family. >> with regard to levi. >> please. >> i think first dude up there in alaska todd palin ought to take levi down to the creek and hold him under the water until the thrashing stops. bill: that might be a bit extreme. check five. a new commercial from evian water has gotten ten million hits on youtube. ♪ >> come on ♪ hip, hip ♪ don't stop
♪ boogie to the rhythm of the boogie ♪ what you do is not a test of bopping to the beat ♪ try to move your feet ♪ i am wondering mike and i would like to say hello ♪ let's rock ♪ you don't stop ♪ make your body rock ♪ evian, evian. bill: i thought babies liked milk. check six, a company called lean way teaches english to people who want to learn that includes elderly russian ladies ♪ ♪ kiss me baby one more time ♪ oh baby, baby ♪ oh, baby, baby
bill: time now for "pinheads and patriots." it was one year ago that our friend, tony snow, passed away. his wife and three children are doing well, but the pain of losing tony does not ever go away. tony was the bravest guy i ever met. never complained about his illness, and he served his country even while ill with honesty and generosity. he's a great example of what a patriot should be. chris brown convicted of assaulting rhianna is atoning in a very strange way.
he has purchased this $300,000 necklace that says oops. very classy. of course mr. brown should be imprisoned, but he was sentenced to five years probation. he remains an enormous pinhead. finally tonight the mail. but of course the great american patriot give away has been so successful, we're expanding it. you buy any "factor" polo shirt and we'll give you the tote bag free. but not lis wiehl, she stays put. get the free tote bag with any polo. also a number of you want to know where my daily commentaries are on the radio. we have posted this list of stations on billoreilly.com, so please check it out. now, the letters.
well, i did not address the air force one controversy, sir. you might want to cut back on the left wing web sites. they are not helping you. the argument is over church and state, ramona. there's no church involved here. wrong, robert. very, very wrong. tragically wrong. according to a fox news poll taken in may 69% of americans believe there is global warming. that's because they can read.
since the mid-1970's the earth has temperature has decreased 1 degree. since 2007 seven of the hottest years ever recorded. so there is global warming. what is causing it is debatable. we'll break a major story on cap and trade tomorrow. you will be fascinated, i promise. as president obama once said above my pay grade, dave. well, i wasn't comparing our two countries, madam. i was reporting that india as well as china and mexico aren't going to cut emissions.
"hannity" is next. i am bill o'reilly. hope to see you again next time. gretchen: hey, we made it to tuesday. so glad that you could join us. i'm going to tell you what's coming up in just a moment on july 14, 2009. well, the supreme court showdown jean society mayor was on capitol hill yesterday. most of the talking was done by the senators. will we hear from her later on today. >> that's right. ask me about my judicial philosophy. steve: yeah, ask her about her judicial philosophy. that's what they're going to do today up on capitol hill. take a look at this. later on told goldman sachs is going to report a 2 billion-dollar profit. how were they able to do that? wind up with $10 billion worth of our tarp money and they still have not repaid it all. we are going to